Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific plagiarism in India

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific plagiarism in India

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It comprises of inappropriate information, about Dr.Gopal Kundu which affects his reputation being a scientist.Thus, I kind request to delete this article. It also comes on first page of google results when we search with keyword "Dr Gopal Kundu". user:Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk)— Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Serious COI issues involving this nomination. Scientific plagiarism in India deals with several cases, appropriately referenced, just one of which involves Dr. Gopal Kundu. The article on Gopal Kundu is a new creation by the AfD nominator. It also failed to mention this controversy and was glowing in its praises to a level that fell outside WP:NPOV. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suppressing information which might be unfavourable to a particular person's reputation is not a reason for deletion. Also, even if we were to accept that that one section is unacceptable, to regard that as a reason to delete the whole article would be absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The nominator's rationale is not very helpful; this should be discussed at WP:BLPN. That section seems well referenced, and fits the article, so I'd not consider it a problem. On the other hand, I wonder about the article. First, why not move it to plagiarism in India? Second, I am worried this article can be a synthesis; it is indeed more of a list of plagiarisms by scientists in India than an overview of the topic the current title implies, and I am having trouble finding any sources that deal with that big picture. A look on Google books suggests there may be few (three?) sources, so I think tha the article is rescuable (and the issue seems notable enough to warrant coverage). The current focus on case studies, however, is not the best model. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps a BLP overview is necessitated, if GopalKundu is alive. AshLin (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not valid reasons. ResMar 19:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note This AfD was not included in any daily AfD listing whatsoever until just now (when I listed it myself). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing in the nomination statement is even remotely close to any criteria for listing here on Afd. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well sourced article. Polyamorph (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-sourced. Some specific entries may require BLP review, but that's no reason for article deletion. -- 202.124.75.208 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a previous AfD led to Plagiarism controversies in india being merged into this article. -- 202.124.75.208 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article appears to be well-sourced and NPOV. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: the Gopal Kundu section appears well-sourced, and that controversy continues to attract considerable media interest in India, so that notability of the section is also clear. There are also a number of sources drawing general conclusions from the affair, but perhaps none reliable enough to include. -- 202.124.75.145 (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthe nomination did not make sense. Please rephrase it clearly.Bunser (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Gopal Kundu Controvesy" of article "Scientific plagiarism in India" contains invalid information about him and the controversy, He is a former scientist who has registered patents and works at National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, India. The page also refers to unofficial invalid sources. I request you to check official website of NCCS,Pune,India which is a Indian government body. the URL is www.nccs.res.in/gck.html. Please consider this request because it affects his reputation.

Thanks. Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikantbhalerao101 has repeatedly posted the same or substantially the same message in various places, including 11 user talk pages. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to how or why the information is "invalid", and which sources are "invalid" and why, but have received no reply. The web page referred to (www.nccs.res.in/gck.html) is Gopal Kundu's page on the web site of his employer. As far as I can make out, Shrikantbhalerao101's point in continually referring to it is "this is the person's 'official' page, and doesn't mention the controversy, therefore the controversy should not be mentioned in any Wikipedia article. Other sources, not 'officially' approved by the person or his employers, should not be used." However, it is impossible to be sure whether that actually is what is intended, as repeated requests for clarification have met only with the same statements being repeated, and no clarification. Shrikantbhalerao101's editing consists entirely of trying to promote Gopal Kundu's reputation, both by adding favourable material (often unsourced) and by attempting to suppress unfavourable information. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - bordering on OR by synthesis. This needs to be referenced better and remove opinions such as the opening line of "...is rising" - unless there is a reference with large scale data to say so. The article is currently based on a bunch of cases with primary sources for them. What it needs is a secondary/tertiary source. Here is a possible source 1 Shyamal (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, adequetly-referenced, long-established article. Was surprised to see no attempt at discussion first on the article's talk page before bringing this to AfD so hastily. -- œ ^™ 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.